ESPN commentators showing their bias

fedfan08

Semi-Pro
Now we know they all wanted a Djokovic/Nadal final without Nadal possibly having to face Federer. Even if grass doesn’t play that much different than other surfaces these days I don’t remember any of them complaining when Djokovic was seeded higher than his rank. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem? Isn’t the bigger problem that in week 2 Wimbledon grass basically plays like a clay court? Shouldn’t that be drawing their ire instead?



 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
They are only doing this because they don't wanna seem against Nadal but it's stupid. The Wimbledon seeding system works and he should not be seeded 2 at Wimbledon because he's only made it past the 4th round once in 7 years and i can't remember the last time he played a grass warm-up event. He could of got the seeding if he played this year, he didn't, Federer did and he won his title.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
McEnroe has warmed up to Rafa after a series of one to one interviews over the years but is big idol of RF! He doe not have an opinion on Djokovic other then he wins! LOL!
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Never take a man who gives stupid nicknames to ever player seriously
omg yes, it is cringe worthy. brad gilbert hardly ever has anything insightful to say.

Also I'm going to need receipts that Darren was making noise about the seedings last year or years prior because it sounds like BS. They honestly think they are being intelligent but they sound stupid as hell.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
They are only doing this because they don't wanna seem against Nadal but it's stupid. The Wimbledon seeding system works and he should not be seeded 2 at Wimbledon because he's only made it past the 4th round once in 7 years and i can't remember the last time he played a grass warm-up event. He could of got the seeding if he played this year, he didn't, Federer did and he won his title.
brad gilbert is a huge rafa fan so no surprise there, a bit surprised by darren but I'm clearly giving him too much credit and I'm not even going to entertain any of the McEnroe brothers, they just live to hear themselves talk.

Also someone correct me if I'm wrong, all nadal had to do was play I think two rounds in queens. He didn't even need to get to the final or win, just a few extra rounds and he secured the no.2 seed. He had no issue showing up in paris, when he was apparently injured, playing what he needed to play to secure the year end no.1 and then getting out of there to rest his body. Apparently people understand math when its convenient for them.

there is also a major case of recency bias. They clearly want a djokodal final because they are currently the best players in the world and they want a re-match of that epic last year. Brad gilbert is always about "warrior" tennis, its annoying imo.
 
Last edited:

Goof

Semi-Pro
Every time I hear Darren Cahill speak, I can't help but wonder how many Majors Halep would have won by now if she hadn't wasted potentially her best years being coached by him.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Love Darren. He understands the dynamic and history of the changes that have necessitate grass court changes. As well as player seeding.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
The courts are slower now. There's no debating that, but there's still a difference in the surfaces when you see two 37 year old attacking tennis players win Halle and Queen's.
Right - if there isn't a surface difference, does Cahill think Nadal is the overwhelming favorite to win Wimbledon and that Thiem may be his biggest threat? Because that was the case at the French.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Right - if there isn't a surface difference, does Cahill think Nadal is the overwhelming favorite to win Wimbledon and that Thiem may be his biggest threat? Because that was the case at the French.
Exactly. How can they act as if clay and grass are playing that close when results tell a different story? It's insane. It's almost like any story will do now regardless of how wrong it is.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
I believe all of this is completely controlled (and deliberately so) by Wimbledon. I used to be naive enough to think draws weren't rigged, and they weren't prior to the emergence of the big 3. You can bet that Nadal will be drawn in Fed's half and all this hysteria has been created to get the desired buzz going. And it's been successful. All of these Tweets shoot down this ridiculous fake news story about the Wimbledon seeding:

https://www.foxsportsasia.com/tennis/wimbledon/1126772/wimbledon-2019-roger-federer-fans-hit-back-at-rafael-nadal-on-disrespectful-seeding-remark/
 

GabeT

Legend
Now we know they all wanted a Djokovic/Nadal final without Nadal possibly having to face Federer. Even if grass doesn’t play that much different than other surfaces these days I don’t remember any of them complaining when Djokovic was seeded higher than his rank. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem? Isn’t the bigger problem that in week 2 Wimbledon grass basically plays like a clay court? Shouldn’t that be drawing their ire instead?



Why would the courts play like clay in the second week? Because they are worn out? But the parts that are most worn out are not where the ball bounces the most. And if worn out grass plays like clay what does that mean for match play back in the S&V era when the courts were much more worn out than today, specially where the ball bounces
 

AceSalvo

Legend
I believe all of this is completely controlled (and deliberately so) by Wimbledon. I used to be naive enough to think draws weren't rigged, and they weren't prior to the emergence of the big 3. You can bet that Nadal will be drawn in Fed's half and all this hysteria has been created to get the desired buzz going. And it's been successful. All of these Tweets shoot down this ridiculous fake news story about the Wimbledon seeding:

https://www.foxsportsasia.com/tennis/wimbledon/1126772/wimbledon-2019-roger-federer-fans-hit-back-at-rafael-nadal-on-disrespectful-seeding-remark/
This is true. No doubt its an ongoing hype job.

Some of the words used in the media point to this whole thing being deliberate. "By whom" and "against whom" is what I am interested in. Its an easy answer if you are paying attention..

Tennis.com is carrying this "ANDERSON RISES, NADAL FALLS IN CONTROVERSIAL WIMBLEDON SEEDINGS". They expect their readers to believe that some senile group of men just decided to do what they wanted with this year's Wimbledon seeding.
 
Last edited:

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
Now we know they all wanted a Djokovic/Nadal final without Nadal possibly having to face Federer. Even if grass doesn’t play that much different than other surfaces these days I don’t remember any of them complaining when Djokovic was seeded higher than his rank. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem? Isn’t the bigger problem that in week 2 Wimbledon grass basically plays like a clay court? Shouldn’t that be drawing their ire instead?



The problem is that 1 through 4 should never be seeded below their rank.
 
I am over it, give them what they want, and when big servers run over people because of poor seeding, they can enjoy their mistake.
 

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
If you worked hard to achieve the ranking why would someone remove your seeding? I remember this time last year when Wimbledon gave Serena the 25th seed and Cibulkova cried about it, the majority of you agreed with Cibulkova because she worked hard only to have a seed taken away from her. In this case I can fully understand the decision but at the same time I agree with Cibulkova. The only reason they decided to give Fed the number 2 seed is to set up a cakewalk for him to reach the finals. I know that Nadal and Novak will be in the same draw just like last year.
 

fedfan08

Semi-Pro
If you worked hard to achieve the ranking why would someone remove your seeding? I remember this time last year when Wimbledon gave Serena the 25th seed and Cibulkova cried about it, the majority of you agreed with Cibulkova because she worked hard only to have a seed taken away from her. In this case I can fully understand the decision but at the same time I agree with Cibulkova. The only reason they decided to give Fed the number 2 seed is to set up a cakewalk for him to reach the finals. I know that Nadal and Novak will be in the same draw just like last year.
That’s BS. Wimbledon has had a transparent seeding formula since 2002. They’re not favoring anybody. It’s math. Nadal could have played two matches at Queens and he would’ve been seeded #2. It’s different with the WTA because they don’t use a formula. It’s totally subjective.
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
Completely disagree. Little Mac and Cahill aren't biased towards Nadal (if anything they're bias towards Fed when you listen to them commentating). The Euro slams are just flat out behind the times. RG doesn't have a roof and no lights so no night matches. SW19 has a no play on the middle Sunday (because that totally makes a huge difference for the surrounding neighborhood :rolleyes:) and in the same breath has no night matches because of the curfew to appease these same people. Cahill is right, the formula was for a time when the surfaces were so radically different that Wimbledon essentially had no choice but to come up with their own ranking system since so many players skipped it since they sucked on grass. Nowadays no one really skips slams save for Fed the last 3 years since he has trying to maximize his chances of winning a slam which worked out in 2017. The Wimbledon ranking system is simply outdated like a lot of their "traditions". This isn’t a Federer and Nadal issue. This is the tennis season is from January-October (unless you're top 8 then it goes to November) and my yearlong efforts should be reflected in my seeding issue.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
honestly don't think there's any conspiracy. They just like to generate controversy. also, they are probably lazy/stupid and can't be bothered with the formula so it's easier for them to stick to the rankings
 

fedfan08

Semi-Pro
I guess I need to add the Tennis Channel to this. Chandra Rubin said the seeding was unfair because Federer didn’t play the French in 2017. What BS. There was no guarantee not playing the clay season in 2017 would benefit Federer on grass. Sure he might have been fresher physically but he would‘ve been extremely rusty. Skipping clay was always a risk. Also Nadal has won RG/Wimbledon back to back.


Oh and one other thing: the entire top 8 on the men’s side (except for Djokovic) have been re-arranged. Yet I don’t see any outrage that Kevin Anderson went from 8 to 4. It’s such BS. Now I hope Nadal is on Djokovic’s side of the draw just to see everyone’s head explode.
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
If you worked hard to achieve the ranking why would someone remove your seeding? I remember this time last year when Wimbledon gave Serena the 25th seed and Cibulkova cried about it, the majority of you agreed with Cibulkova because she worked hard only to have a seed taken away from her. In this case I can fully understand the decision but at the same time I agree with Cibulkova. The only reason they decided to give Fed the number 2 seed is to set up a cakewalk for him to reach the finals. I know that Nadal and Novak will be in the same draw just like last year.
Exactly, Serena did not deserve that seeding period.
 

Luka888

Hall of Fame
Fed got #2 fair and square. W formula is what it is. Some of you might not like it but ... Brits will keep doing what they are doing and it's fine with me. What's next? You want the UK to become a Republic :eek:;)
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
Completely disagree. Little Mac and Cahill aren't biased towards Nadal (if anything they're bias towards Fed when you listen to them commentating). The Euro slams are just flat out behind the times. RG doesn't have a roof and no lights so no night matches. SW19 has a no play on the middle Sunday (because that totally makes a huge difference for the surrounding neighborhood :rolleyes:) and in the same breath has no night matches because of the curfew to appease these same people. Cahill is right, the formula was for a time when the surfaces were so radically different that Wimbledon essentially had no choice but to come up with their own ranking system since so many players skipped it since they sucked on grass. Nowadays no one really skips slams save for Fed the last 3 years since he has trying to maximize his chances of winning a slam which worked out in 2017. The Wimbledon ranking system is simply outdated like a lot of their "traditions". This isn’t a Federer and Nadal issue. This is the tennis season is from January-October (unless you're top 8 then it goes to November) and my yearlong efforts should be reflected in my seeding issue.
The seeding formula was introduced in 2002. That year Lleyton Hewitt, a baseline counter-puncher, won Wimbledon.

So there is nothing outdated about it. The fomula was introduced to make seeding transparent and objective. Before 2002, a committee would decide if and how Wimbledon seeds should deviate from the rankings.

I don't think anyone ever cared that Gaston Gaudio skipped Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:

beard

Professional
So, Darren Cahill and Patrick McEnroe don't know basic stuff about the current game (let's pretend that they didn't say that with malicious intent)?

:cool:
But you know everything... How man can be so... so....
Sorry Fed fans in the name of the tennis experts who tell thing you were laughing fow few day now...
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
The seeding formula was introduced in 2002. That year, Lleyton Hewitt, a baseline counter-puncher won Wimbledon. The seeding is no less relevant now than it was then.
I'm aware of when seeding system began. That doesn't make it right. It's been almost 2 decades since it was introduced, and it was a mistake. there was absolutely no need for it in the first place. Especially since 2002 was the first year Wimbledon was played on the new 100% rye grass. Anderson has been crap all year and now he gets rewarded? That's just backwards thinking.
 

Luka888

Hall of Fame
The seeding formula was introduced in 2002. That year Lleyton Hewitt, a baseline counter-puncher, won Wimbledon.

So there is nothing outdated about it. The fomula was introduced to make seeding transparent and objective. Before 2002, a committee would decide if and how Wimbledon seeds should deviate from the rankings.
Yeah. I always say if you are good enough you can win it. Forget about seedings. Remember Goran Ivanisevic? He came out of nowhere and won it.

I do understand your point of view though. However, I do believe if you are good enough you can win SW17 regardless of everything. :cool:
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
I'm aware of when seeding system began. That doesn't make it right. It's been almost 2 decades since it was introduced, and it was a mistake. there was absolutely no need for it in the first place. Especially since 2002 was the first year Wimbledon was played on the new 100% rye grass. Anderson has been crap all year and now he gets rewarded? That's just backwards thinking.
You said: "the formula was for a time when the surfaces were so radically different..."

Two baseliners made the Wimbledon final that year. Nalbandian, the other finalist, actually retired with a better record at RG than Wimbledon.

The formula barely changes seeds anyway. It quite obviously does not fully account for how much better some players like Feli Lopez are on grass than clay. And there are plenty of grass mugs like Thiem who are still going to have inflated seeding at Wimbledon.
 

fedfan08

Semi-Pro
I'm aware of when seeding system began. That doesn't make it right. It's been almost 2 decades since it was introduced, and it was a mistake. there was absolutely no need for it in the first place. Especially since 2002 was the first year Wimbledon was played on the new 100% rye grass. Anderson has been crap all year and now he gets rewarded? That's just backwards thinking.
But nobody is complaining about Anderson. They’re losing their mind because OMG it’s impossible for Djokovic to get Federer in his half now and a 50% chance he might get Nadal. I’ll beg any money Nadal loses early and Uncle Foni or someone else in his camp blames it on the seeding drama.
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
But nobody is complaining about Anderson. They’re losing their mind because OMG it’s impossible for Djokovic to get Federer in his half now and a 50% chance he might get Nadal. I’ll beg any money Nadal loses early and Uncle Foni or someone else in his camp blames it on the seeding drama.
That doesn't matter. I don't give a rip who Nadal gets matched up with whether it's Novak or Rog. A player should not be rewarded based on a 2 year ranking system. It's funny, when Nadal suggested a season long 2 year ranking system everyone and their mother was up in arms about it (and rightfully so). But when it only affects the grass season it's a okay :unsure:
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
You said: "the formula was for a time when the surfaces were so radically different..."

Two baseliners made the Wimbledon final that year. Nalbandian, the other finalist, actually retired with a better record at RG than Wimbledon.

The formula barely changes seeds anyway. It quite obviously does not fully account for how much better some players like Feli Lopez are on grass than clay. And there are plenty of grass mugs like Thiem who are still going to have inflated seeding at Wimbledon.
Wimbledon over corrected. They change the seeding system along with the grass that the court was played on. They thought they were going to get the best grass players playing on a more balanced grass court.
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
Wimbledon over corrected. They change the seeding system along with the grass that the court was played on. They thought they were going to get the best grass players playing on a more balanced grass court.
They didn't correct anything. They changed from a subjective seeding system to an objective one.

You could make the argument that they should have gotten rid of it after 2002 - say, in 2003. But they didn't as they clearly still saw a purpose for it. And not much has changed since then. Wimbledon's formula does not overrate or underrate anyone's prowess on grass, really. However, it doesn't account for decline as well as following the current rankings does.

Please give me one example of Wimbledon's seeding formula causing a better grass courter to be seeded below a worse grass courter. Without injury being the reason for that.
 
Last edited:

Rogfan

Semi-Pro
I wholeheartedly agree with every word this poster says, allow me to copy it here

@Raiden “It has become sexy among tennis-pundtry to go against Federer. Hipster tennis talking-heads love to artificially boost their anti-establishment profile by being anti Fed and pro Rafa. It's sorta like Federer represents the establishment, and since Nadal is his rival, he represents the anti-establishment. Which is of course hilariously ridiculous in the extreme. Nadal actually is part of a real life old elite Mallorca family and on top of that he loves to rub elbows with the even bigger establishment on the mainland including the very top ruling classes and the royal family; and Real Madrid is his favourite club (the ultimate elitist establishment symbol in the country). But in the Anglo-Saxon world there is still this fictitious idyllic image of Nadal being some sort of a rebel underdog who came from a humble background -- an island whose ancestors were fishermen and pirates wearing bandanas and capri pants...”

Of course they still kiss Fed’s ass in play coz that’s the only way any comm could go. But off court I’ve noticed the sharp shift in the last couple of years in “controversies” where Fed has absolutely no involvement but somehow benefits and how some comms can’t wait to jump on his opposite side pretending to be very objective
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
They didn't correct anything. They changed from a subjective seeding system to an objective one.

You could make the argument that they should have gotten rid of it after 2002 - say, in 2003. But they didn't as they clearly still saw a purpose for it. And not much has changed since then. Wimbledon's formula does not overrate or underrate anyone's prowess on grass, really. However, it doesn't account for decline as well as following the current rankings does.

Please give me one example of Wimbledon's seeding formula causing a better grass courter to be seeded below a worse grass courter. Without injury being the reason for that.
If anything, this system is the subjective one. It's basically this guy did better last year so he might do well this year let's bump him up. The Wimbledon system right now is essentially a 2-year ranking system like Nadal proposed just on a much smaller scale. And people had a huge issue with that including me. Imagine if you will you and another guy work for the same company. You perform better than your colleague, but for one month of the year he outperforms you. Then your boss brings you both in and says this guy who you consistently outperform is going to be promoted and you will be working underneath him. Does that sound far? All I have to do is look last year and see Diego clay court specialist Schwartzman was seeded above Kyrgios.
 

WhiskeyEE

Legend
If anything, this system is the subjective one. It's basically this guy did better last year so he might do well this year let's bump him up. The Wimbledon system right now is essentially a 2-year ranking system like Nadal proposed just on a much smaller scale. And people had a huge issue with that including me. Imagine if you will you and another guy work for the same company. You perform better than your colleague, but for one month of the year he outperforms you. Then your boss brings you both in and says this guy who you consistently outperform is going to be promoted and you will be working underneath him. Does that sound far? All I have to do is look last year and see Diego clay court specialist Schwartzman was seeded above Kyrgios.
Was Diego seeded above Kyrgios specifically because of the formula? That is issue I brought up.

Clearly not as he was ranked #11 at the time yet seeded #14 at Wimbledon. So Wimbledon's formula correctly reduced his seeding because of his muggery on grass. Having said that, it makes only a small difference. Kyrgios, on the other hand, was ranked #19 and seeded #15.

Your analogy isn't really that applicable here. It would be more analogous to your boss promoting your co-worker, who showed better management skills last year than you did, to a management position despite you more recently out-performing him in non-management related assignments.
 
Last edited:

fedfan08

Semi-Pro
That doesn't matter. I don't give a rip who Nadal gets matched up with whether it's Novak or Rog. A player should not be rewarded based on a 2 year ranking system. It's funny, when Nadal suggested a season long 2 year ranking system everyone and their mother was up in arms about it (and rightfully so). But when it only affects the grass season it's a okay :unsure:
The special formula for Wimbledon has been around since 2002. Why is it this year that everyone seems to be freaking out about it? I guarantee you if it was Fed that was bumped #2 to #3 nobody would be talking about it because he never would have complained about it.
 
Top